MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160120331 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0008

The non-<i>agouti</i>mutation in Norway rats (<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>) selected for behavior

2013· article· en· W2160120331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Р. Г. Гулевич, I. N. Oskina, O. Ilyina, Yu. Herbeck, I. Z. Plyusnina, Lyudmila N. Trut

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Academy of SciencesRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsBiologyGenotypeAlleleGeneticsHeterozygote advantagePhenotypeMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency of aa homozygous descendants was studied in crosses of Aa heterozygous Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769)) parents selected for tame and aggressive behavior. First, Aa heterozygotes were obtained in crosses between tame homozygotes for the wild-type allele (AA) and aggressive homozygotes for the non-agouti allele (aa). The most tame and the most aggressive descendants were selected from the progeny of the Aa genotype by using the glove test. Then Aa rats were crossed among tame and among aggressive descendants, and the AA and Aa genotypes of grey descendants were identified by polymerase chain reactions (PCR). The segregation of descendants into the AA, Aa, and aa genotypes was cumulatively analyzed in five generations of selection with regard to the phenotypic manifestation of tame and aggressive behavior in their parents. The frequency of aa descendants in the progeny of mothers with low aggressive behavior scores was less than expected and less than in the progeny of mothers with high aggressive behavior scores.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals→French-language works237,207→